Andrew Bartlett has been active in politics for over 20 years, including as a Queensland Senator from 1997-2008. This blog started in 2004 and reflects his own views, independent of any political party or organisation.

Figures in the story show the number of primates being used for research in Australia is continuing to grow, even though protocols for the use of animals in research require alternatives to be used wherever possible. It is quite difficult to get the full picture about all the animals used in a variety of different types of research and institutions across across Australia, although the Humane Research Australia website provides some very useful stats and other information. Getting info about research using primates and other ‘higher’ animals is even more difficult, including what the purpose of the research is. But as this story shows, experiments on monkeys are being carried out right here in Brisbane by the Defence Force. Primates can also still be imported for research purposes, which is something Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon is seeking to prohibit.

The use of animals in research is is not something that is regulated consistently or transparently at a national level. I served for a couple of years on a University Animal Ethics Committee, which considered all research proposals which planned to use animals. The vast bulk of proposals involved using rats or mice – it tended to be that the more ‘developed’ the animal e.g. birds, pigs, dogs, the more scrutiny was given to whether the research was necessary and whether it could be carried out in more humane ways.

I never saw a proposal to use primates in research, but it is certainly something I find concerning, given the reality of emotional as well as physical harm being caused.

Advertisement

I don’t think it makes much sense for any political party to align itself with extremist organisations such as Animals Australia, Humane Research Australia etc.

As for humans being considered primates, all you have to do is look at their lifestyle and lack of technological advancement to know this could not possibly be the case, no matter how often the idea is pushed on national television.

Even if humans were considered to be primates, animals in the wild (including some primates) hunt and kill one another for food, very often quite brutally.

Over a number of decades, research scientists have been almost hamstrung where experimentation on animals is concerned.

While I believe that animals should only be used when absolutely necessary, I certainly wouldn’t consider substituting humans, unless people from these extremist organisations were willing to volunteer.

Humans obviously are included in the (evolving) scientific definition of primates, which takes into account a myriad of factors which we have in common with owl monkeys and their cousins. Whether it is mentioned on TV or not, I would have thought, has little to do with reality. Anyone who doubts that humans are very closely related to monkeys, orang utans etc might therefore wonder about the usefulness of the testing.

The reading I was led to from your post, thanks Andrew, mentioned that there is doubt about the direct applicability of much animal research anyway. Why are we tolerating torturing and harming of living creatures who undoubtedly suffer when the results may be useless? I wonder also how much of this research is shared by the Army anyway? If they found wonderful information about malaria, would they share it with Indonesia, for example?

It is related, in my opinon, to the mindset that would try to harm human beings in detention camps as a deterrent example to others. Not only is that of doubtful effectiveness, it is also cruel. What happened to the Hippocratic oath in science? Or is that only for humans?

The Hippocratic Oath for humans is being dispensed with very slowly over time. As we know, abortions are now performed almost at the click of someone’s fingers, despite the fact that any doctor who performs an abortion in circumstances other than the very exceptional is breaking both the Hippocratic Oath and Queensland laws.

Reply to “Australian Experimentation on Other Primates”

Mini Posts

I’ve had a break from writing for a variety of reasons, but the reckless approach the new Queensland government is taking to their spending decisions – and the straightout nonsensicality of some of their claims – roused me enough to pen a piece for New Matilda. Time will tell whether the Newman government will start trying to ensure their statements have some connection with reality – I suggest the way they respond next year to the findings of the inquiry into child safety which they’ve established will be a significant test.

Back in October, I wrote here about the decline or re-defining of blogs, at least in the Australian political arena. The relatively few posts I’ve done on this blog since then shows how much less useful I find it to do my own blog than I used to, and as I mentioned back then, a big reason why I don’t read many of the blogs I used to is because the valuable links to many interesting stories, ideas and pieces of information can be found more easily through Twitter or Facebook, sometimes with comment threads which are also at least as good.

Fundamentally, I don’t greatly care about the outcome of Labor’s leadership travails. As my previous post indicates, the bigger issue is that the ALP is being fundamentally damaged by the toxicity of this brawl, and the fact that the brawl is happening in this way is a sign of some much greater problems within Labor. Whatever the immediate outcome, I think those problems are likely to continue. The outcome of the leadership contest (including the size of what will surely be a Gillard victory) will shape how those problems play out, but they will still be there.

Not surprisingly, I see this as presenting an opportunity for the Greens to build some support, but more importantly it presets extra responsibility and obligation for the Greens to be a stronger counter to what is a seriously reactionary Coalition.

But seeing we’re all pundits now, and despite having little inside knowledge, my prediction is that there will be no ‘third candidate’ in tomorrow’s leadership ballot. Julia Gillard will win comfortably. The instability will not disappear. It’s quite possible there will be another leadership ballot before the election but Kevin Rudd will not become leader then either. No matter how good Kevin Rudd looks in the polls, that polling lead would disappear very quickly if he was back in the PM’s job.

I’ve mentioned before my liking for the 80s Brisbane band Ups and Downs. I got a chance to interview their lead singer Greg Atkinson on 4ZzZ FM a few weeks ago. They’ve released a compilation CD of 20 of their best tunes and played a gig in Brisbane earlier this month to promote and celebrate it.

It was a fairly long interview, but I found it very interesting to hear the views of someone who has been active in the independent sphere of the music industry for so long about what has changed and what is the same.